Prostate Cancer Screening

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 18666 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Robert J. Volk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • entertainment education for Prostate Cancer Screening a randomized trial among primary care patients with low health literacy
    Patient Education and Counseling, 2008
    Co-Authors: Robert J. Volk, Stephen J. Spann, Sarah T. Hawley, Suzanne Kneuper, Maria Jibajaweiss, Brian J Miles, David J Hyman
    Abstract:

    Objective To evaluate an entertainment-based patient decision aid for Prostate Cancer Screening among patients with low or high health literacy.

  • Trials of Decision Aids for Prostate Cancer Screening. A Systematic Review
    American journal of preventive medicine, 2007
    Co-Authors: Robert J. Volk, Sarah T. Hawley, Suzanne Kneuper, E. Wayne Holden, Leonardo A. Stroud, Crystale Purvis Cooper, Judy M. Berkowitz, Lawrence E. Scholl, Smita S. Saraykar, Valory N. Pavlik
    Abstract:

    Background Patient decision aids are used to promote informed decision making. This review examines the methods and findings of studies that have evaluated the impact of Prostate Cancer Screening decision aids on patient outcomes. Methods MEDLINE, the Cochrane Registry, reference lists, and abstracts from professional meetings were searched through December 2006. Search terms included Prostate Cancer Screening and decision making. Studies were included if a patient education intervention for Prostate Cancer Screening had been evaluated against a control condition. Results Eighteen eligible trials, involving 6221 participants, were identified. Sixteen studies enrolled primary care patients, while the remaining two studies were community-based. All the Prostate Cancer Screening decision aids were in English, with varied reading levels. Consistent with previous reviews, the patient decision aids improved patient knowledge and made patients more confident about their decisions. The aids appeared to decrease interest in Prostate-specific antigen testing and Screening behavior among patients seeking routine care (relative risk [RR]=0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.81–0.97, p =0.008); the aids had no impact on the Screening behavior of patients seeking Screening services. Additionally, patients who received patient decision aids were more likely to prefer watchful waiting as a treatment option if they were found to have Prostate Cancer than were controls (RR=1.53, 95% CI=1.31–1.77, p Conclusions Prostate Cancer Screening decision aids enhance patient knowledge, decrease decisional conflict, and promote greater involvement in decision making. The absence of outcome measures that reflect all elements of informed decision making continues to limit the field.

  • Preferences of Husbands and Wives for Outcomes of Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment
    Journal of general internal medicine, 2004
    Co-Authors: Robert J. Volk, Scott B. Cantor, Stephen J. Spann, Alvah R. Cass, Susan C. Weller, Murray Krahn
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To explore the preferences of male primary care patients and their spouses for the outcomes of Prostate Cancer Screening and treatment, and quality of life with metastatic Prostate Cancer.

  • Preferences of Husbands and Wives for Prostate Cancer Screening
    Archives of family medicine, 1997
    Co-Authors: Robert J. Volk, Scott B. Cantor, Stephen J. Spann, Alvah R. Cass, Melchor P. Cardenas, Michael M. Warren
    Abstract:

    The benefits of Screening for Prostate Cancer are uncertain. Outcomes of treatment are particularly important to couples because they challenge the most intimate aspects of a couple's relationship. This study used clinical decision analysis to explore the preferences of 10 couples for Prostate Cancer Screening. The decision-analytic model found that 7 of 10 husbands preferred the no Screening strategy, while 9 of 10 wives preferred Screening for their husbands. Wives associated little burden with complications of treatment, preferring to maximize their husbands' quantity of life regardless of complications. The issue of who is the decision maker is paramount in the case of Prostate Cancer Screening. Optimal Screening strategies may differ for husbands and wives. Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Screening and management should consider assessing preferences on an individual couple basis.

Peter C. Albertsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Preferences of Husbands and Wives for Outcomes of Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment
    The Journal of Urology, 2005
    Co-Authors: Peter C. Albertsen
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To explore the preferences of male primary care patients and their spouses for the outcomes of Prostate Cancer Screening and treatment, and quality of life with metastatic Prostate Cancer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. SETTING: Primary care clinics in Galveston County, Texas. PATIENTS: One hundred sixty-eight couples in which the husband was a primary care patient and a candidate for Prostate Cancer Screening. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preferences were measured as utilities for treatment outcomes and quality of life with metastatic disease by the time trade-off method for the husband and the wife individually and then conjointly for the couple. For each health state considered, husbands associated lower utilities for the health states than did their wives. Couples’ utilities fell between those of husbands and wives (all comparisons were significant at P .01). For partial and complete impotence and mild-to-moderate incontinence, the median utility value for the wives was 1.0, indicating that most wives did not associate disutility with their husbands having to experience these treatment complications. CONCLUSIONS: Male primary care patients who are candidates for Prostate Cancer Screening evaluate the outcomes of Prostate Cancer treatment and life with advanced Prostate Cancer as being far worse than do their wives. Because the choice between quantity and quality of life is a highly individualistic one, both the patient and his partner should be involved in making decisions about Prostate Cancer Screening.

Stephen J. Spann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Isaac J. Powell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A decision aid for teaching limitations of Prostate Cancer Screening.
    Journal of National Black Nurses' Association : JNBNA, 2008
    Co-Authors: Sally P. Weinrich, Robert M. Hamm, Rachelle Seger, Ganesh S. Rao, Evelyn C. Y. Chan, Paul A. Godley, Judd W. Moul, Isaac J. Powell, Gerald W. Chodak, Kathryn L. Taylor
    Abstract:

    There is minimal research regarding men's knowledge of the limitations of Prostate Cancer Screening. This study measured knowledge of Prostate Cancer Screening based on exposure to one of two decision aids that were related to Prostate Cancer Screening (enhanced versus usual care). The sample consisted primarily of low income (54%) African-American men (81%) (n=230). The enhanced decision aid was compared against the usual care decision aid that was developed by the American Cancer Society. The enhanced decision aid was associated with higher post-test knowledge scores, but statistically significant differences were observed only in the men who reported having had a previous DRE (p = 0.013) in the multivariable analyses. All the men were screened, regardless of which decision aid they received. This study highlights the impact of previous Screening on education of the limitations of Prostate Screening, and challenges the assumption that increased knowledge of the limitations of Prostate Cancer Screening will lead to decreased Screening.

  • Digital rectal examinations and Prostate Cancer Screening: attitudes of African American men.
    Oncology nursing forum, 1995
    Co-Authors: Donald E. Gelfand, Jeanne Parzuchowski, Cort M, Isaac J. Powell
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To explore the relationship between attitudes toward digital rectal examination (DRE) and participation in Prostate Cancer Screening among African American men. DESIGN Survey. SETTING Prostate Cancer Screenings with a Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test held at churches with African American members in Detroit, MI. SAMPLE 613 African American men between the ages of 40 and 70. METHODS Self-administered, structured questionnaires examining attitudes toward DRE, past experiences with DRE, and fear of Cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Willingness to undergo DRE. FINDINGS The majority of men who were screened had positive attitudes about DRE. Fear of Cancer was associated with negative attitudes toward DRE. DREs were not a deterrent among men who attended the Screenings. CONCLUSION Negative attitudes toward DRE do not necessarily deter African American men from participating in Prostate Cancer Screenings. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE Prostate Cancer Screening programs should attempt to use both DRE and PSA. More reliable Prostate Cancer indicators are obtained by incorporating DRE with PSA tests.

William J. Catalona - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences: A Randomized Survey Study.
    The Journal of urology, 2018
    Co-Authors: Adam B. Weiner, William J. Catalona, Kyle Tsai, Mary Kate Keeter, David Victorson, Edward M. Schaeffer, Shilajit D. Kundu
    Abstract:

    Purpose: Shared decision making is recommended in regard to Prostate Cancer Screening. Decision aids may facilitate this process but the impact of decision aids on Screening preferences is poorly understood.Materials and Methods: In an online survey we randomized a national sample of adults to the online decision aids of 1 of 6 professional societies. We compared survey responses before and after decision aid exposure. The primary outcome was the change in participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending Prostate Cancer Screening on a scale of 1—unlikely to 100—extremely likely. Secondary outcomes included change in participant comfort with Prostate Cancer Screening based on the average of 6, 5-point Likert-scale questions.Results: Median age was 53 years in the 1,336 participants and 50% were men. The randomized groups did not differ significantly by race, age, gender, income, marital status or education level. The likelihood of undergoing or recommending Prostate Cancer Screening decreased from 83 t...

  • Viewpoint: expanding Prostate Cancer Screening.
    Annals of internal medicine, 2006
    Co-Authors: William J. Catalona, Stacy Loeb, Misop Han
    Abstract:

    Prostate Cancer Screening is controversial, and major professional associations offer differing Screening guidelines. The authors address 3 key issues about Prostate Cancer Screening: 1) the Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) criteria to recommend a Prostate biopsy, 2) the appropriate age to start Screening, and 3) the appropriate age to stop Screening. The authors argue, on the basis of evidence published since 2000, that data supporting the efficacy of PSA Screening are convincing. They recommend Screening for risk assessment for average-risk men beginning at age 40 years, Screening selected healthy men older than age 70 years, and lowering the PSA threshold for considering biopsy to 2.5 ng/mL for all men.

  • RESULTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH Prostate Cancer Screening GUIDELINES
    The Journal of urology, 2005
    Co-Authors: Robert L. Grubb, Kimberly A. Roehl, J.o. Ann V. Antenor, William J. Catalona
    Abstract:

    ABSTRACTPurpose: Current guidelines of the American Cancer Society and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend offering annual Prostate Cancer Screening with Prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) beginning at age 50 (age 45 in high risk men). There are limited data concerning outcomes if all men followed Screening guidelines. We report early outcome data on men who entered a Prostate Cancer Screening study, complied with the Screening guidelines and were subsequently diagnosed with Prostate Cancer.Materials and Methods: We reviewed records of men 45 to 59 years old at study entry with a PSA less than 2.6 ng/ml and benign DRE who underwent annual DRE and PSA testing in a Screening study between 1991 and 2001. Of 10,174 men with these characteristics, 232 (2.3%) were subsequently diagnosed with Prostate Cancer. We evaluated PSA, Gleason score, clinical and pathological tumor stage, and treatment outcomes in these men.Results: Median PSA at diagnosis was 3.1 ng/ml (...

Related terms

Prostate Cancer Screening - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts